Willett Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, Texas

Fifth Circuit

Willett Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, Texas

409 F.2d 1362

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 23, 1969

Docket26715_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 409 F.2d 1362 (Willett Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willett Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, Texas, 409 F.2d 1362 (5th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The background of this appeal is set forth in an opinion by Judge Connally, D.C., 285 F.Supp. 85 (1968), writing for a three-judge court (Brown, Circuit Judge, and Connally and Singleton, District Judges) constituted by reference to 28 U.S.C. § 2281. In that opinion Judge Connally stated the conclusion of himself and his colleagues that appellant’s claim for injunctive and declaratory relief was not within the scope of the statute providing for consideration by a three-judge court, nor did it state a cause of action which, on the merits, was appropriate for judicial relief. Speaking also in the capacity of a single District Court judge, Judge Connally adopted the reasoning of the three-judge court as his own, and entered a judgment dismissing the complaint. See generally, Jackson v. Choate, 404 F.2d 910 (5th Cir. 1968), and Smith v. Ladner, 260 F.Supp. 918 (S.D.Miss. 1966).

On petition for a writ of certiorari, the United States Supreme Court regarded the matter as being before it in the posture of an appeal from a decision by a single-judge District Court that the convening of a three-judge court was not warranted. It concluded, accordingly, that the appeal lay to a Court of Appeals and not to the Supreme Court, and it directed that appropriate steps be taken to enable such an appeal to be taken. 391 U.S. 352, 88 S.Ct. 1502, 20 L.Ed.2d 630 (1968). This is that appeal.

We have considered the reasons adopted by Judge Connally for his refusal to convene a three-judge court and for his dismissal of the complaint as stating no claim for either injunctive or declaratory relief appropriately to be granted by the District Court. We find them persuasive to the point of requiring no elaboration by us. The judgment appealed from is, accordingly,

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The background of this appeal is set forth in an opinion by Judge Connally, D.C., 285 F.Supp. 85 (1968), writing for a three-judge court (Brown, Circuit Judge, and Connally and Singleton, District Judges) constituted by reference to 28 U.S.C. § 2281. In that opinion Judge Connally stated the conclusion of himself and his colleagues that appellant’s claim for injunctive and declaratory relief was not within the scope of the statute providing for consideration by a three-judge court, nor did it state a cause of action which, on the merits, was appropriate for judicial relief. Speaking also in the capacity of a single District Court judge, Judge Connally adopted the reasoning of the three-judge court as his own, and entered a judgment dismissing the complaint. See generally, Jackson v. Choate, 404 F.2d 910 (5th Cir. 1968), and Smith v. Ladner, 260 F.Supp. 918 (S.D.Miss. 1966).

On petition for a writ of certiorari, the United States Supreme Court regarded the matter as being before it in the posture of an appeal from a decision by a single-judge District Court that the convening of a three-judge court was not warranted. It concluded, accordingly, that the appeal lay to a Court of Appeals and not to the Supreme Court, and it directed that appropriate steps be taken to enable such an appeal to be taken. 391 U.S. 352, 88 S.Ct. 1502, 20 L.Ed.2d 630 (1968). This is that appeal.

We have considered the reasons adopted by Judge Connally for his refusal to convene a three-judge court and for his dismissal of the complaint as stating no claim for either injunctive or declaratory relief appropriately to be granted by the District Court. We find them persuasive to the point of requiring no elaboration by us. The judgment appealed from is, accordingly,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 F.2d 1362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willett-wilson-v-city-of-port-lavaca-texas-ca5-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack